If Article 15(1) should give rise to the same deferential ‘reasonableness’ test that is used for Article 14, the Court is treating a distinction between men and women under Article 15 at par with a distinction between sellers of tea and coffee under Article 14 – this surely cannot be the correct constitutional position.
Tarunabh at Law and Other Things provide useful excerpts from Supreme Court Justices’ statements in the landmark case upholding reservations and examine grounds for strict scrutiny [via].
Comments
Comments are closed on this post.